Need Help with Invisibility Rulings

[Murrdox]

Actually, Hyp would say the person dropped their defense and one of your multiple swings that would not have otherwise hit gets a chance to.

I didn't mean that Hyp subscribed to my interpretation... only that he had stated what the two sides on this were. I know he takes the other camp.

I acknowledge that an AoO can be multiple swings, but instead of one connecting just because defenses happened to drop, one connects because the person notices a lapse of defense, and begins concentrating attacks in that area. Small difference, I know.

The problem is that turning invisibility into immunity from AoOs is that it turns a usefull second level spell into a very powerful spell. Invis is already powerful. Removing AoOs slides into breaking game balance. If you want that simplicity, you might want to change the level of the spell.

Immunity from AoO really isn't a mechanic of Invisibility. It's more a mechanic of blindness, or when you cannot see your attacker. It doesn't matter what the conditions are... poor lighting, a Darkness spell, Invisibility, a Blindness spell, or a bag over your head. If you can't see the person provoking the AoO, you can't make an attack, unless you have some OTHER sense that allows you to identify attackers, like Blindsight or Scent.

 

[LokiDR]

Immunity from AoO really isn't a mechanic of Invisibility. It's more a mechanic of blindness, or when you cannot see your attacker. It doesn't matter what the conditions are... poor lighting, a Darkness spell, Invisibility, a Blindness spell, or a bag over your head. If you can't see the person provoking the AoO, you can't make an attack, unless you have some OTHER sense that allows you to identify attackers, like Blindsight or Scent.

My mistake. You are making all those effects more powerful. The most often used effect would be invisibility, but all of them are more powerful. Have you considered implications on hiding characters?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I ran into an Invisibility and AoOs situation this weekend. A goblin mounted on a worg charged a PC archer the round before the wizard glitterdusted the whole bunch of them. Everyone in the area of effect failed their save.

So, the Worg used a standard action to scent where the opponent was and verbally guided its rider to attack the archer. ("it's right in front of us"). The archer felt the direction that the attacks were coming from and decided to rapid shot in melee.

Whatever the logic for not allowing AoOs in against (effectively) invisible foes may be, I didn't think it applied--the worg and the goblin knew what square he was in and were attacking him. So they both got to make AoOs with the standard 50% miss chance. (However, they didn't use them for trip attacks which they would have done if they could see what the archer was doing).

 

[Murrdox]

My mistake. You are making all those effects more powerful. The most often used effect would be invisibility, but all of them are more powerful. Have you considered implications on hiding characters?

Well, it also makes Darkvision, good lighting, Glitterdust, Invisibility Purge, and Blindsight more powerful and useful as well.

Take the following scenaro. A group of fighters is walking down a dungeon corridor, where they're ambushed by several Orcs. An orc shaman casts Gust of Wind, and the torches of the party members are blown out. Aside from an elven wizard, the rest of the party is now blind. Several of the orcs begin combat with the front line fighters, and several other orcs take advantage of the darkness to slip past the fighters and attack the wizard in the rear of the party. The wizard quickly casts Darkvision on a nearby fighter to help protect him from the orcs.

If you could still take attacks of opportunity while blind, the orcs wouldn't be able to "slip by", which almost negates the entire purpose of the tactic. You'd also have to deal with the party in a crowded space moving amongst each other, CONSTANTLY provoking "friendly" attacks of opportunity. Darkvision also becomes much more valuable, since now that the recipient can see, he can once again make AoO against the orcs.

The implications on hiding characters? I can't really think of any off the top of my head, unless a character is hiding in such a way that he can't see the people he's hiding from.

 

[LokiDR]

Well, it also makes Darkvision, good lighting, Glitterdust, Invisibility Purge, and Blindsight more powerful and useful as well.

Take the following scenaro. A group of fighters is walking down a dungeon corridor, where they're ambushed by several Orcs. An orc shaman casts Gust of Wind, and the torches of the party members are blown out. Aside from an elven wizard, the rest of the party is now blind. Several of the orcs begin combat with the front line fighters, and several other orcs take advantage of the darkness to slip past the fighters and attack the wizard in the rear of the party. The wizard quickly casts Darkvision on a nearby fighter to help protect him from the orcs.

If you could still take attacks of opportunity while blind, the orcs wouldn't be able to "slip by", which almost negates the entire purpose of the tactic. You'd also have to deal with the party in a crowded space moving amongst each other, CONSTANTLY provoking "friendly" attacks of opportunity. Darkvision also becomes much more valuable, since now that the recipient can see, he can once again make AoO against the orcs.

The implications on hiding characters? I can't really think of any off the top of my head, unless a character is hiding in such a way that he can't see the people he's hiding from.

Under my house rule, the fighters would have to know where the orcs are. It makes sense that the fighters should get some chance to stop the orcs they just saw in front of them. Otherwise, the wizard is toast before he can get the darkvision spell off. 50% miss chance still applies, I have just added a listen check.

Hiding was just an off hand thought. Like hide, run through the enemy lines with no AoO, and stab the enemy shamen. I haven't worked out the specifics myself.

 

[Murrdox]

I dunno.

I think that mostly my conflict here stems from my interpretation of what an actual AoO IS. It's an intentional strike or series of strikes at an opponent when he lowers his defenses for a moment. You notice the wizard reaching for a potion from his belt. He is no longer paying careful attention to evading your swings, so you get to take a swipe at the potion to attempt to shatter it.

The other option is that you're always striking at your opponents, and when he lowers his defenses, one of your strikes just happens to go through.

My problem with option #2 there is that if that is indeed the case, why can I only make one AoO per round? Since I'm limited in the number I can take, there must be some effort and decision making on my part, also from the fact that I can decide what type of AoO I want to make. If I just "happened" to strike a wizard when his defenses are down, how does that strike turn into a disarm attempt, or an attack on the potion he's drinking? Since these sorts of things are allowed as AoO, it just seems that you consciously strike at the weak spots in the opponent's defenses.

If Listen checks can be made in order to determine AoO, then what if I run up to a Fighter while I'm invisible... and I start speaking verbal spell components? I'm not actually CASTING a spell, but can I fool the fighter into trying to take an AoO on me? Obviously I can't.

I just think part of making an AoO involves being aware of (that is, SEEING) the weak spot in the character's defense that you need to concentrate on to make the AoO.

I also still think it's a lot less complex simply using it as a game mechanic so that you don't have to deal with "friendly" attacks of opportunity.

 

[LokiDR]

I dunno.

I think that mostly my conflict here stems from my interpretation of what an actual AoO IS. It's an intentional strike or series of strikes at an opponent when he lowers his defenses for a moment. You notice the wizard reaching for a potion from his belt. He is no longer paying careful attention to evading your swings, so you get to take a swipe at the potion to attempt to shatter it.

The other option is that you're always striking at your opponents, and when he lowers his defenses, one of your strikes just happens to go through.

...

If Listen checks can be made in order to determine AoO, then what if I run up to a Fighter while I'm invisible... and I start speaking verbal spell components? I'm not actually CASTING a spell, but can I fool the fighter into trying to take an AoO on me? Obviously I can't.

I just think part of making an AoO involves being aware of (that is, SEEING) the weak spot in the character's defense that you need to concentrate on to make the AoO.

I also still think it's a lot less complex simply using it as a game mechanic so that you don't have to deal with "friendly" attacks of opportunity.

I agree with your concept of AoOs. But eliminating AoOs for unseen opponents is too much. You still have other senses, and that should count for something.

If you start speaking verbal components but aren't casting a spell, you can trick me into wasting an AoO. I like that. If I could AoO you running past me even though you are invisible, but my chances of hitting are cut in half at least, you will think about it a moment. I like that.

When tatics aren't absolute, it brings more thought into combat, rather than "I swing". More dynamic combat, more chance for interesting things to happen. Invis is good chance, but won't work against the rogue who has made sure his hearing is keen and his combat reflexes are sharp.

 

[Murrdox]

I agree with your concept of AoOs. But eliminating AoOs for unseen opponents is too much. You still have other senses, and that should count for something.

Your other senses do count for something. When it is your turn, you're allowed a listen/spot check to find the square the invisible opponent is in. They just don't go so far as to allow you to see through gaps in an opponent's defenses... because you can't SEE the opponent's defenses in the first place. If an invisible person drinks a potion next to you, I just don't see how anyone could KNOW that (unless they drink very noisily), let alone make an AoO to strike the potion, even with a 50% miss chance.

I think the senses required to make an AoO while blinded amount to Blindsight. I could see perhaps allowing Scent, Tremorsense, or Blindfight... but I'm not sure. I don't think any of these "super" senses would really work to detect ALL the different types of AoO you could provoke, so I'd rather just say they don't help against any at all. Tremorsense will allow you to sense someone moving away from you, but not to the degree that you can see through their defenses and get an attack in. It WILL allow you to perfectly track where that target goes, though, and run up to engage it on your turn.

 

[LokiDR]

Your other senses do count for something. When it is your turn, you're allowed a listen/spot check to find the square the invisible opponent is in. They just don't go so far as to allow you to see through gaps in an opponent's defenses... because you can't SEE the opponent's defenses in the first place. If an invisible person drinks a potion next to you, I just don't see how anyone could KNOW that (unless they drink very noisily), let alone make an AoO to strike the potion, even with a 50% miss chance.

Matter of oppinion. Loss of sight doesn't mean loss of all reflexes. If you hear a person next to you chanting and the only invisible person you know of is an enemy spellcaster, you are going to swing. You can't see them, so you have less of chance of hitting (50%) but that doesn't stop you from trying.

Your solution IS simpler. I just don't think it is a balanced by the rules. Invis is powerful enough. More so by my interpretation. I think yours is over the top.

I think the senses required to make an AoO while blinded amount to Blindsight. I could see perhaps allowing Scent, Tremorsense, or Blindfight... but I'm not sure. I don't think any of these "super" senses would really work to detect ALL the different types of AoO you could provoke, so I'd rather just say they don't help against any at all. Tremorsense will allow you to sense someone moving away from you, but not to the degree that you can see through their defenses and get an attack in. It WILL allow you to perfectly track where that target goes, though, and run up to engage it on your turn.

So a creature that only "sees" by tremorsense cannot make AoOs? IIRC, there are some creatures like that.

Blindfight, if nothing else, should grant AoO use under your house rule. Otherwise, blindfight isn't blind-fight, it is blind-dodge/luck.

Scent shouldn't allow you take AoOs, just track down were a creature is.

 

[Murrdox]

Matter of oppinion.

Yeah, I've got a lot of those.

I could possibly go with the idea of allowing AoO when you cannot see the attacker, if there was some reference point for the DC to detect that you have an opportunity to MAKE your AoO. Listen seems the obvious choice to use... of course then we're stuck in a bind AGAIN if the person in question has both deafness AND blindness cast on them.

Here's a chart off the top of my head. Keep in mind, this is a check for determining whether or not you detect the chance to make an AoO... not the same as identifying the square you need to strike at.


DC 15 - Detect someone is leaving a square you threaten
DC 10 - Detect someone casting a spell with verbal components
DC 20 - Detect someone casting a spell without verbal components
DC 25 - Detect someone using a potion
DC 15 - Detect someone sheathing a weapon
DC 20 - Detect someone making a ranged attack

Thoughts?